Re: VEDIC SANSKRIT
For example, we have "aśva" and "śvan". One is known as horse, and the other as dog. But, in the Vedic understanding, the central meaning to these words are, "sacrifice" and "immortality", respectively, and which further are somehow "meant" to be diametrically placed with respect to each other, as it were, on a map.
Originally Posted by Ram116040
By learning to chant properly, I suppose, one also at the same time begins to discover the power that the mantra-s can wield. The most important and fundamental step is to learn the Sanskrit varna-mala and all its sounds.
Proper result is obtained only when the mantras are chanted according to the rules and disastrous results if they are chanted in a wrong way and that mantras(worship)are always in Sanskrit and not in any other language.
Sanskrit words are almost mathematically built from a set of fundamental sound-groups known as dhātu. So, the units are mathematically added, using internal sandhi rules of sound, to create the words. However, in my view, the roots themselves are not fundamental to Sanskrit, it is the sound-rules that are. Both varna-mala and declension-system are coded deep into layered consciousness.
I did not understand this theory then.Can learned members kindly explain the relation between a Sanskrit word and the object it denotes and the efficacy of mantras?
Ultimately, we cannot see Sanskrit and Veda as two different products. Sanskrit, all the vital components of it, are there preserved in the Veda. And by preserving Veda (writing follower texts on it, and so on) Sanskrit has been preserved to a large extent.
In the example of śvan and aśva, as is the case for other words, the Veda uses its own reference to denote other objects. It means, aśva is used to denote horse rather than the horse inspiring aśva to come to life and assume other tangential meanings.
Indeed, Veda doesn't take reference from outside of itself. It talks about things (again from its own reference), but that can be used to talk about rest of the "things" in this world or even other worlds, presumably.
A sharp contrast to this approach is what we observe in the language adopted by the scientists and the mathematicians of our time: they very egotistically continue "putting themselves" into the language- thus we have words like Lagrangian, Zariski, Newtonian, etc- the garbage keeps on increasing (forget the alienation handed over to "lowbrow" people who belong to common masses or even the non-mathematical non-physics subject-domains) until no body knows what the guy next door is talking about.
Things to remember:
1. Life = yajña
2. Depth of Āstika knowledge is directly proportional
to the richness of Sanskrit it is written in
3. Āstika = Bhārata ("east") / Ārya ("west")
4. Varṇa = tripartite division of Vedic polity
5. r = c. x²
r = realisation
constant c = intelligence
variable x = bhakti